The judgment established the principles of joint family debt, manager's authority to bind the joint family, and the representation of minor members in suits involving joint family property.

1. This is a second appeal from the reversing judgment and decree of Mr. M.G. Nashikkar, District Judge; East Berar, Amraoti, in civil Appeal No. 11-A of 1941, decided on -29-8-1942.

2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Jangli (plaintiff-respondent) against one Gendalal (defendant-appellant) for partition of certain joint family property obtained by Gendalal in auction sales following decrees passed in various suits. The dispute related to many items of property but the present appeal is concerned with a house which was described in the plaint as item (A). There is also, a cross-objection filed by the respondent for damages, for use and occupation of the house but the cross-objection was not pressed) and we say nothing about it except that it is dismissed with costs.

The suit really is one. for declaration that one-fourth share in the house in item (A) belonged to the plaintiff and that the auction-purchaser could not get any right in that share inasmuch as the decree was passed only against the uncles of the plaintiff. No objection was taken to the frame of the suit and, therefore, it is not necessary to say anything about it.

3. The plaintiff alleged that civil Suit No. 109 of 1925 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ellichpur, was filed by Girdhar Kirad against his uncles Gurudin, Rama and Gangadin in their personal capacity and that his share was not affected by the decree passed in that suit. That suit was brought fey Girdhar Kirad on the basis of a promissory note executed by Jangli's three uncles, namely, Gurudin, Rama and Gangadin. The promissory note in the suit is Ex. D-8 in this matter. Girdhar Kirad had at first also joined Jangli in the suit, vide Ex. D-7, but later on he applied that Jangli should fee discharged, and the suit, therefore proceeded against the remaining three defendants. The decree was passed in the suit on 18-11-1925. The decree is not on record but a certified copy of the judgment is Ex. F-4. The house in question was brought to sale and was purchased by the present appellant and he has been in possession of it from 25-8-1928. At all material times, up to 25-8-1928 the present plaintiff (respondent in this matter) was a minor. The sole question in this case is whether the decree in civil Suit No. 109 of 1925 is binding upon the plaintiff (minor) and whether the share of the minor in the house had been conveyed to Gendulal the present appellant, in the execution sale that followed it.

4. The case of the defendant was that Gurudin, the uncle of the plaintiff, Jangli, was admittedly the manager of the joint Hindu family of which the plaintiff was a member and which had not been divided and in which there was no partition up to the date of the suit. The promissory note was executed by the uncle and his two brothers, Rama and Gangadin, as manager and adult members of the joint Hindu family, and the uncle being admittedly the manager of that family, the debt was binding upon the whole family including the plaintiff. It was also urged by the defendant that the money was borrowed by the joint family for the purpose of financing a stationery and a pan bidi shop which was an ancestral business. This business was started by Sital, the grandfather of the plaintiff and the father of defendant 8, in Civil Suit No. 109 of 1925.

5. The case of the plaintiff was that he was not a party to the suit as he was discharged before the termination thereof and, therefore the decree which was ultimately passed was not binding upon him. He also contended that there was nothing to show that the suit was brought against Gurudin in a representative capacity, and that after the discharge or the present plaintiff the suit must be deemed to have proceeded against the remaining three defendants in their personal' capacity only.

6. Both the learned lower Courts below have found that the stationery and pan bidi shop was an ancestral business of this joint Hindu family and that Sital, the grandfat